Not Our Problem? The Neuroethical Implications of Youth Detainment

International Neuroethics Society Essay Winner, 2018

November 28, 2018

Each year the International Neuroethics Society (INS) holds a Student/Postdoc Essay Contestto promote interest in neuroethics among students and postdocs early in their academic careers. This is the winning essay in the science communication category; the winner in the academic category is by Elizabeth M. Ingram.

By Jean Ngoc Boulware, University of Chicago,
Center for Practical Wisdom research assistant

Jean Ngoc Boulware

On
June 13th, 2018, an image took the internet by storm--a two-year-old child
crying inconsolably as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent pats down her mother. The
image was powerful in the context of a recent policy shift on immigration
resulting in the separation of children from their parents at the southern
border. Though this toddler was allowed to stay with her mother, thousands of
other children were separated from their parents and forcibly detained under
conditions of privation that appeared to be extreme: children held in caged
areas under the surveillance of guards and even medicated without consent.
Although an executive order was quickly signed to end the policy of separating
families, weeks later many are still in detention and six weeks of emotional
trauma and deprivation for these children may have already had detrimental
effects on their brain development and psychological functioning that could
have lifelong consequences. Moreover, when thinking about the detainment of
children at the U.S. Mexico border, it is important to consider the similar
conditions of early adversity that youth may face in all forms of detention,
notably, juvenile detention centers.

Research
in animals has shown that environment has a huge impact on brain development
relative to deprived conditions (Greenough, 1975). For institutionalized children,
refugees, and immigration detainees living in diminished environments, there
are substantial effects on mental health and cognitive abilities (Pollak et
al., 2010; Hodel et al., 2015; Miller, Hess, Bybee, & Goodkind, 2018;
Robjant, Robbins, & Senior, 2009; Ichikawa, Nakahara, & Wakai, 2006).
Pollak et al. (2010) found young children kept in prolonged institutionalized
care showed deficits in attention, learning, and memory which suggest delayed
maturation in frontal circuitry and reduced connectivity of the frontal cortex
with other areas of the brain. Hodel et al. (2015) identified differences such
as reduced prefrontal volume in specific bilateral areas in the frontal gyrus
and the right rostral anterior cingulate cortex in the brains of post-institutionalized
children as compared to children who were raised in familial settings. Hodel et
al. also identified reduced volume in the hippocampus and amygdala, areas
associated with memory and emotional response which suggests that early
adversity and institutionalization are associated with detrimental effects in
brain development. Clearly, keeping
children under conditions of reduced stimulation, isolation, and mistreatment
may produce significant changes in the developing brain, changes that may be associated
with deficits in cognitive, social, and emotional processing.

For
children detained at the border, isolated from their parents, under harsh and
stressful conditions, these findings may herald problems in brain development.
Unfortunately, there is very little research carried out on children in
immigrant detainment, and less on those forcibly separated from their
parents. However, a recent study of
adult immigrants in post-migration detention compared to those integrated into
the community, showed significantly higher levels of post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and anxiety (Ichikawa et al., 2006). Robjant, Robbins, &
Senior (2009) found similar results in a cohort of adult immigrant detainees in
the United Kingdom. Detainees suffered a significantly higher number of
instances of trauma compared to those who were not detained, and showed greater
anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms, and psychological distress. Furthermore,
Miller et al. (2018) demonstrated that refugees who were separated from families
showed higher levels of psychopathology and significantly lower quality of
life. Family separation led to a sense of powerlessness, emotional
dissatisfaction, and distress (Miller et al., 2018). In adults, the impact of
detainment and family separation is clear. The actions of the United States on
child detainment may be imposing cruel and unusual punishment on children who,
through no fault or action of their own, have entered the US without
appropriate documentation. The possibility of causing neurological damage to
blameless children with potential lifelong consequences transgresses norms of
moral and ethical treatment of children.

At its peak, the recent detainment numbers were
reported to be about 2,300 children separated from families at the US Mexico
border. On any given day in the United States, there are about 50,000 youth in
correctional facilities (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
2018). In 2017, Puzzanchera and Kang reported about 50% of youth arrests were
for misdeeds like underage drinking, disorderly conduct, or underage gambling.
The prospect of imposing adverse effects of neurological development for
minimal crimes would seem at odds with moral and ethical norms as well. While
the research does not establish a clear causal relationship between periods of
detention and neurological disorders, there is an important ethical
consideration in assessing what detention means. This highlights the importance
of understanding more specifically how US policies involving children affect
their health and future welfare and whether such policies are consistent with
our ethical goals and moral values as a society.

References

Greenough,
W. T. (1975). Experiential Modification of the Developing Brain: The
environment and the organism's interactions with it may play an important part
in the formation of synapses between nerve cells in the brain. American Scientist, 63(1), 37-46.